The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to put the question, which means they'll now stop debating and instead immediately vote on the question.

About the bill

progressively extend the lower 27.5 per cent corporate tax rate to all corporate tax entities by the 2023-24 financial year; and further reduce the corporate tax rate in stages so that by the 2026 27 financial year, the corporate tax rate for all entities will be 25 per cent

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted in put the question so that they could vote on the matter they were discussing immediately rather than speaking more about it.

The majority voted in favour of speeding things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted "That the question be now put". This type of motion forces the House to vote on the matter immediately rather than debating anymore.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to "put the question", which means debate has to stop and the question needs to be voted on immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In other words, they wanted to voted immediately on whether to pass the bill (and so end the third reading stage) rather than debating it for longer. Because this vote was successful, debate ended and the House immediately voted.

These sorts of motions are known as 'closure' or 'gag' motions and in parliamentary jargon, they are motions 'to put the question'.

the proposal offers more money for schools, but less than the previous Labor Government had offered;

every student will attract the same amount of funding but the amount of funding that the federal government will provide (as opposed to the state governments) is not equal between government and non-government schools (that is, the federal government will provide 80% of the funding for non-government schools but only 20% for government schools, with the states paying the difference);

those in need will get more funding, but the Government still doesn't have any proposal for how this will work or even how many students will be eligible for this, which leaves a big question mark over the whole proposal.

The majority voted on a motion to speed things along by voting on the question immediately rather than debating any further. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to "put the question". In this case, the question was whether to suspend the normal parliamentary rules so that they could decide whether to pass the bill immediately.

the proposal offers more money for schools, but less than the previous Labor Government had offered;

every student will attract the same amount of funding but the amount of funding that the federal government will provide (as opposed to the state governments) is not equal between government and non-government schools (that is, the federal government will provide 80% of the funding for non-government schools but only 20% for government schools, with the states paying the difference);

those in need will get more funding, but the Government still doesn't have any proposal for how this will work or even how many students will be eligible for this, which leaves a big question mark over the whole proposal.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to put the motion of whether to agree with the main idea of the bill immediately, which is what happened.

The majority voted in favour of having the vote on whether to pass the bill immediately. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to suspend standing orders, which would normally require a certain period of time to pass before the House can vote on whether to pass the bill.

Because of this vote, there will be no more discussion of the bill in the House, which is why votes like this are sometimes called 'gags'.

This is a motion to 'put the question'. Members of Parliament (MPs) who vote in favour of putting the question are really voting in favour of speeding things along. In other words, they want to stop talking about a question and just vote on it already.

These types of motions are sometimes known as 'gag' motions, since they stop debate.

(1) acknowledges that the global refugee crisis is for Australia a humanitarian challenge and not a border security problem;

(2) notes that Australia's response to asylum seekers will inevitably require a genuinely regional solution involving most, if not all south-east Asian countries, as well as Australia and New Zealand, and be approved by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees;

(3) insists that Australia's response to asylum seekers be consistent with all of our international treaty obligations including the Refugee Convention, the Rome Statute, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and

*(4) calls on the Government to develop and implement a sophisticated policy response to this challenge that as far as possible deals with the situation in source countries, countries of first asylum and transit countries.' *

The majority voted in favour of putting the motion. This is parliamentary jargon for speeding things along. By voting in favour of this question, the majority has voted to end debate on an issue by immediately voting on it.

Motion text

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, meaning that the discussion about the bill will now end and the House will now vote on whether they agree with the main idea of the bill (that is, whether to give the bill a second reading).

The majority voted for ending the debate on the bill's main idea so the members will now be asked whether they agree with it straight away without any more talk. In parliamentary jargon, they voted for putting the question.

Bill's main idea

The bill's main idea is to speed up the management of asylum seekers' claims and support the Government's policies that stop asylum seekers from coming to Australia by boat (for example, by intercepting the boats and turning them around). It also re-introduces temporary protection visas "because the Government is of the view that those who arrive by boat without a valid visa should not be rewarded with permanent protection" (see the bills digest)

For example, the bill will insert a provision into the Migration Act 1958 that says that Australia’s non-refoulement obligations are not relevant to removing people who are not citizens and don't have a visa. The bills digest explains that this change would mean courts won't be able to stop the Government from removing people just because it is against Australia’s non-refoulement obligations. In other words, the Government wants to decide how to apply those obligations by itself, without any potential judicial oversight.

For more about which changes may go against these obligations and how, see the bills digest.

Background to the bill

The title of the bill says it is about "resolving the asylum legacy caseload". This refers to the asylum claims made by asylum seekers who arrived by boat without a visa between August 2012 and December 2013 and who have not been sent to be processed on Nauru or Manus Island. The Coalition Government says this caseload of asylum claims is the result of the previous Labor Government's policies.

During the 2013 election campaign, the Coalition said it would address this caseload and the changes made in this bill are part of their effort to do this.

More information on the background to the bill is in the bills digest.

The majority agreed to end debate on the bill's main idea (in parliamentary jargon, they agreed to put the question). This means that the House will now vote on whether they agree with the main idea without further delay (see that division).

Main idea of the bill

The main idea of the bill is to introduce broad ranging changes to the higher education sector, including the three changes mentioned below.

3. Charging fees for postgraduate research degrees

Currently, postgraduate students in research degrees don't have to pay any tuition costs. The bill will allow universities to charge these students fees of up to $3,900 per unit for high-cost courses and $1,700 for low-cost courses.

Background to the bill

As part of its 2014-15 Budget, Prime Minister Tony Abbott's Government has announced a series of changes to government funding arrangements and this bill is part of those changes (read more in the bills digest).

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which was introduced by Liberal MP Steven Ciobo. This type of motion has the effect of ending debate by immediately putting the question under discussion. The question referred to was whether the amendments made in the Senate should be agreed to, which was subsequently put.(See the division on whether to agree to the amendments here. )

This bill repeals the Minerals Resource Rent Tax as well as related measures such as the low income superannuation contribution, the income support bonus and the schoolkids bonus. The bill also revises the capital allowances for small business entities and the superannuation guarantee charge percentage increase.(Read more about the changes made in the bill in the explanatory memorandum. ) Under the previous Labor government, the superannuation was set to increase to 12 per cent by 2019 (as of 1 July 2014, it is at 9.5 per cent).(Read more about superannuation in Australia here.) However, this bill will push that rise up until 1 July 2025.

The majority voted in favour of a motion that "the motion be put", which was introduced by Liberal MP Steven Ciobo. Mr Ciobo put this motion to end the third reading debate by immediately putting the question of whether to read the bill for a third time and therefore pass it in the House of Representatives.(See the division on whether to read the bill for a third time here. )

This bill repeals the Minerals Resource Rent Tax as well as related measures such as the low income superannuation contribution, the income support bonus and the schoolkids bonus. The bill also revises the capital allowances for small business entities and the superannuation guarantee charge percentage increase.(Read more about the changes made in the bill in the explanatory memorandum. ) Under the previous Labor government, the superannuation was set to increase to 12 per cent by 2019 (as of 1 July 2014, it is at 9.5 per cent).(Read more about superannuation in Australia here.) However, this bill will push that rise up until 1 July 2025.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which was introduced by Liberal MP Steven Ciobo. This motion has the effect of ending the consideration in detail stage of the debate and immediately put the question of whether the bill should be agreed to.(See the division on whether to agree to the bill here. )

This bill repeals the Minerals Resource Rent Tax as well as related measures such as the low income superannuation contribution, the income support bonus and the schoolkids bonus. The bill also revises the capital allowances for small business entities and the superannuation guarantee charge percentage increase.(Read more about the changes made in the bill in the explanatory memorandum. ) Under the previous Labor government, the superannuation was set to increase to 12 per cent by 2019 (as of 1 July 2014, it is at 9.5 per cent).(Read more about superannuation in Australia here.) However, this bill will push that rise up until 1 July 2025.

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question be put, which was introduced by Liberal MP Steven Ciobo. The question referred to was a motion introduced by Labor MP Chris Bowen and was subsequently put.(See the division on Mr Bowen's motion here.)

This bill repeals the Minerals Resource Rent Tax as well as related measures such as the low income superannuation contribution, the income support bonus and the schoolkids bonus. The bill also revises the capital allowances for small business entities and the superannuation guarantee charge percentage increase.(Read more about the changes made in the bill in the explanatory memorandum. ) Under the previous Labor government, the superannuation was set to increase to 12 per cent by 2019 (as of 1 July 2014, it is at 9.5 per cent).(Read more about superannuation in Australia here.) However, this bill will push that rise up until 1 July 2025.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the question be now put", which was introduced by Parliamentary Secretary Alan Tudge. This motion ended debate on the question by immediately putting it to the House.(See that division here. )

In this case, the question was whether "consideration of the message be made an order of the day for a later hour this day." This "message" was from the Senate and stated that the Senate insisted on the amendments it had made previously to the bill. The House must decide whether to agree to these amendments and therefore pass the bill or reject the amendments, which means the bill will fail.(Read more about the stages that a bill must go through to become law here. )

The ARF is the fund from which grants to states and territories will be sourced under the Asset Recycling Initiative ('ARI'), which was developed to assist states to privatise assets and to speed up the construction of transport infrastructure in capital cities.(Read the Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss's comments on the initiative on ABC's PM program here. ) Under the ARI, states and territories will be encouraged to sell assets, including transport infrastructure, and use the proceeds to fund new public infrastructure. By way of encouragement, the Commonwealth will provide a financial contribution of 15 per cent of the asset value of the sale that is used to fund the new infrastructure.(See the bills digest for more information. )

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which has the effect of ending the third reading debate on the bill. The question was whether to read the bill for a third time, which was subsequently put.(See that division here. )

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which has the effect of ending the third reading debate on the bill. The question was "that the motion to suspend so much of the standing orders as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay". That motion was subsequently put.(See that division here. )

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which has the effect of ending the consideration in detail debate on the bill. The question was whether to agree to the bill (read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here), which was subsequently put.(See that division here. )

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which has the effect of ending the second reading debate on the bill. The question was whether to read the bill for a second time, which was subsequently put.(See that division here. )

The majority voted in favour of a motion that "The questions be now put", which was put by Minister for the Environment Greg Hunt. This means that the House will stop discussing the bills in detail and will now vote on the amendments that have been proposed.

Background to the bills

The Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014 and related bills were introduced to remove the carbon pricing mechanism, which was introduced by the Australian Labor Party while in government. The Coalition described the mechanism as a “carbon tax” and removing it was a key policy platform during the 2013 election.(You can read more about the Coalition's policy to remove the carbon price here. )

The carbon pricing mechanism commenced on 1 July 2012.(For more information on the carbon pricing mechanism and how it works, please see the Clean Energy Regulator’s website. ) It is an emissions trading scheme that puts a price on carbon emissions. It applies to “liable entities” (a group that includes companies that emit a high level of greenhouse gases). Initially the price of carbon is fixed by the mechanism but from 1 July 2015 the price will be set by the market, though the Labor Government did announce plans to bring this forward to 1 July 2014 just before they were defeated by the Coalition in the 2013 election.

This is the third time that this package of bills have been introduced. The first time, they were rejected in the Senate during the third reading stage.(See that division here. ) The second time, they were rejected in the Senate during the committee stage.(See that division here. Read more about this second rejection of this package of bills on ABC News here or on the World Today here.)

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the question be now put", which means that the House will stop discussing the bills in detail and will now vote on the question proposed, which was whether an amendment introduced by Greens MP Adam Bandt be agreed to. This question was subsequently put without division because there are fewer than five members on the side of the 'ayes' when the vote was put.(Read more about why a division does not always take place in our FAQ Section here.)

The amendment would have amended the original motion "that the bills be read a second time" with the following:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House declines to give the bill a second reading and:

(1) notes that:

(a) the world is on track for 4 degrees of warming; and

(b) warming of less than 1 degree is already intensifying extreme weather events in Australia and around the world with enormous costs to life and property; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) protect the Australian people and environment from climate change by approving no new coal mines or extensions of existing mines, or new coal export terminals; and

The Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014 and related bills were introduced to remove the carbon pricing mechanism, which was introduced by the Australian Labor Party while in government. The Coalition described the mechanism as a “carbon tax” and removing it was a key policy platform during the 2013 election.(You can read more about the Coalition's policy to remove the carbon price here. )

The carbon pricing mechanism commenced on 1 July 2012.(For more information on the carbon pricing mechanism and how it works, please see the Clean Energy Regulator’s website. ) It is an emissions trading scheme that puts a price on carbon emissions. It applies to “liable entities” (a group that includes companies that emit a high level of greenhouse gases). Initially the price of carbon is fixed by the mechanism but from 1 July 2015 the price will be set by the market, though the Labor Government did announce plans to bring this forward to 1 July 2014 just before they were defeated by the Coalition in the 2013 election.

This is the third time that this package of bills have been introduced. The first time, they were rejected in the Senate during the third reading stage.(See that division here. ) The second time, they were rejected in the Senate during the committee stage.(See that division here. Read more about this second rejection of this package of bills on ABC News here or on the World Today here.)

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne.

The question referred to was that the bill be read a third time, which was subsequently put.(See this division here. )

Background to the bill

The Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 was introduced to remove the foreign ownership and other restrictions that apply to Qantas but do not apply to other airlines based in Australia.(Read more on ABC News and on ABC Radio's AM program. ) These restrictions include: limits on the issue and ownership of Qantas shares, the makeup of the board of directors, use of the name Qantas and the location of the head office, place of incorporation and principle place of business.(Read more in the bills digest (852 KB).)

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question be put, which was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne.

The question referred to was a motion introduced by MP Pyne 'that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.' This motion was subsequently put.(See this division here. )

Background to the bill

The Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 was introduced to remove the foreign ownership and other restrictions that apply to Qantas but do not apply to other airlines based in Australia.(Read more on ABC News and on ABC Radio's AM program. ) These restrictions include: limits on the issue and ownership of Qantas shares, the makeup of the board of directors, use of the name Qantas and the location of the head office, place of incorporation and principle place of business.(Read more in the bills digest (852 KB).)

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question be put, which was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne.

The question was that the bill be agreed to and was subsequently put.(See that division here. )

Background to the bill

The Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 was introduced to remove the foreign ownership and other restrictions that apply to Qantas but do not apply to other airlines based in Australia.(Read more on ABC News and on ABC Radio's AM program. ) These restrictions include: limits on the issue and ownership of Qantas shares, the makeup of the board of directors, use of the name Qantas and the location of the head office, place of incorporation and principle place of business.(Read more in the bills digest (852 KB).)

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne.

The question referred to is whether to read the bill for a second time, which was subsequently put.(See the division for that motion here. )

Background to the bill

The Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 was introduced to remove the foreign ownership and other restrictions that apply to Qantas but do not apply to other airlines based in Australia.(Read more on ABC News and on ABC Radio's AM program. ) These restrictions include: limits on the issue and ownership of Qantas shares, the makeup of the board of directors, use of the name Qantas and the location of the head office, place of incorporation and principle place of business.(Read more in the bills digest (852 KB).)

The majority voted in favour a motion to put the question, which means that it can now be voted on.

The question was that the further Greens amendments be agreed to.(A copy of the Greens amendments is available here. ) This question was subsequently voted on and agreed to without division, which means that the House agrees with the Senate that the debt limit should be removed altogether.

Background to Bill

On 22 October 2013, the Abbott Government announced that it will raise the debt ceiling from $300 billion to $500 billion.(Read more about this in the media here. ) This was following the August 2013 Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook which reported that the Treasurer's standing borrowing authority would reach the $300 billion limit by December 2013.

The purpose of the increase to the debt ceiling is to "provide stability and certainty to financial markets about the Government's ability to issue sufficient debt to manage its budget".(See the explanatory memorandum (106 KB). More about the bill, including its bills digest, is available here.)

This means that the question can now be put, which is that the requested amendment be made.(See that division here. )

Background to Bill

On 22 October 2013, the Abbott Government announced that it will raise the debt ceiling from $300 billion to $500 billion.(Read more about this in the media here. ) This was following the August 2013 Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook which reported that the Treasurer's standing borrowing authority would reach the $300 billion limit by December 2013.

The purpose of the increase to the debt ceiling is to "provide stability and certainty to financial markets about the Government's ability to issue sufficient debt to manage its budget".(See the explanatory memorandum (106 KB). More about the bill, including its bills digest, is available here.)

The majority voted for a motionthat the question be now put. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne, Leader of the House.

The question referred to is contained in a motion put by Opposition Labor MP Tony Burkethat the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.

Background to the Motion

The Speaker’s ruling referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.(Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's website. ) The Speaker’s ruling was made because the amendment may possibly result in liability under the scheme exceeding what is provided under the current law, which would therefore be contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).(For more information about standing orders, see this fact sheet.)

The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.

Yes

Yes (strong)

Passed by a small majority

How
"voted very strongly for"
is worked out

The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes get
50 points,
less important votes get
10 points,
and less important votes for which the MP was absent get
2 points.
In important votes the MP gets awarded the full
50 points
for voting the same as the policy,
0 points
for voting against the policy, and
25 points
for not voting. In less important votes, the MP gets
10 points
for voting with the policy,
0 points
for voting against, and
1
(out of 2)
if absent.

Then, the number gets converted to a simple english language phrase based on the range of values it's within.

No of votes

Points

Out of

Most important votes (50 points)

MP voted with policy

48

2400

2400

MP voted against policy

0

0

0

MP absent

1

25

50

Less important votes (10 points)

MP voted with policy

0

0

0

MP voted against policy

0

0

0

Less important absentees (2 points)

MP absent*

0

0

0

Total:

2425

2450

*Pressure of other work means MPs or
Senators are not always available to vote – it does not always
indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less
important vote makes a disproportionatly small
difference.